Originally Posted by The Rani

Good lordy, when did I ever say that? If there are cycles for Ice Ages, there must be other cycles as well. That's all I meant. I was just trying to explore the issue ... maybe learn a little something?

Here's what you wrote:

Maybe I'm dumb or something, but I thought that climate changes happened in cycles too. Isn't that how we got the Ice Ages?

Here you express a belief that current warming is part of a natural cycle, not the result of human activity. That is you express a skeptic viewpoint. As part of a cycle there is nothing to worry about because what comes up will come down, so it can start cooling anytime now (see bolded statement below) and this whole thing will be a flash in the pan.

Anyway, I sure don't like to see seals and polar bears drowning, but I also don't like to see veal calves in crates. So I can't get too excited about the whole global warming thing. It's just one of many atrocities that our species imposes on the rest of the planet. Probably because I have no kids, and couldn't care less if we all go extinct after I'm dead.

Here you address that you could be wrong, but since you don't really care, what's the big deal? Based on this viewpoint, there is no reason for a reader to assume you had any interest in "exploring the issue".

But Marc, serious question, does the idea of your kids, or even great-grandkids, starving to death someday bother you at all? I mean, even if it's a climate change as a natural cycle, we're pretty much screwed before too long. Unless you think we're gonna cool down again relatively soon, which I guess could happen. They kept saying we were in for more hurricanes last year, but then we didn't get a single one!

Here again you identify with the skeptic's pov on the issue.

It seems to me that you were making a claim about this issue about which you care nothing. But the many posts on the thread since this one suggest that despite your lack of interest, you are interested in commenting about the issue. And these comments are supportive of the skeptic's position.

In this sense you are taking a position on this issue about which you care so little. I was addressing the apparent basis of this position.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or maybe me and Justin together could do it, like the Wonder Twins on the Superfriends?

Shoot. My ring is still in a box somewhere.

Guess we're all screwed...

By the way, since we're correcting Bob's malapropisms, I should mention that I have yet to ever meet -- though I have at least heard of a person who actually "reject[s an] entire field... of science", at least insofar as climatology is concerned. We could even quibble, on the part of those posited-by-hearsay people, that Bob and most of us are guily of the same sin in rejecting the 'science' of astrology -- which also, by the way, has lots and lots of very pretty charts and very squiggly lines. There could very plausibly be a person who rejects climatology on the grounds that it is a faith-based, evidence-light pseudoscience.

Having dispensed with that -- a position, I hasten to add, not my own. I should mention that run-of-the-mill skeptics are not skeptical as to the scientific nature of studies of climate. What they are skeptical of is the inadequately-constructed (as badly as Bob's strawmen, one could say...) theories that are being flogged by some in the field. This is in no way denying the field at all.

Originally Posted by The Rani

A Major Extinction Event might actually be beautiful, if you're on the right drugs?

The dinosaurs couldn't stop the meteor (or whatever else it was that killed them) and we can't stop our own demise if Big Mamma Nature decides that's what we get. You can't stop Karma, man, just ask the hippies. In the meantime, let's party!

I may have been posting on the site too long. My first response wasn't to the cavalier disregard of life and precious heritage. I thought, 'Now she's sounding like Zilch.'

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What they are skeptical of is the inadequately-constructed (as badly as Bob's strawmen, one could say...) theories that are being flogged by some in the field.

Actually, by almost all in the field. There are very few climatologists left who remain skeptical about AGW. And so:

This is in no way denying the field at all.

Yes, it pretty much is, in the same way that denying quantum mechanics would be rejecting the whole field of physics, or denying evolution would be rejecting biology. Or more precisely, you're setting yourself up as an amateur climatologist and rejecting the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the professionals in the field.

Originally Posted by The Rani

To use an analogy, say that a bunch of medical researchers suddenly discovered that Viagra prevents cancer, and they started going on talk shows with their data

To make that analogy accurate, they only started going on talk shows after a lengthy debate in JAMA, many double-blind studies, and lots of criticism eventually fading to a consensus that they were right. If you saw it first on the talk shows, it's a different kettle of fish than AGW altogether.

Or else it means you're not a doctor and don't read medical journals. I might have seen it first on the talk shows, and taken the attitude you describe. You probably would not have.

By the way, Bob, if you're still conscious, what makes you think that changing my worldview will somehow save the planet? I'm simply not that powerful.

You always did underestimate yourself.

Originally Posted by The Rani

To use an analogy, say that a bunch of medical researchers suddenly discovered that Viagra prevents cancer, and they started going on talk shows with their data, saying that we needed to take "collective action" to stop millions of deaths by authorizing Congress to add the drug to the water supply. I'm neither a urologist nor an oncologist, but I know enough about both the mechanism of action of Viagra and the pathophysiology of cancer to know that this claim of theirs is highly unlikely to be true, much less provable in the amount of time that Viagra has been in existence. So I think, gee, these guys have an agenda, and I don't buy what they're saying, but I still want to learn more, just out of curiosity.

I'll grant that AGW activists "have an agenda". I'll also grant that their science may be "badly constructed", or at least oversold, i.e. they may be unable to support their claims as solidly as they say they can.

But after that the analogy breaks down. What exactly are climatologists advocating that is even remotely comparable to the wide-scale experiment (and massive risk to public health) that your analogy implies? Every policy recommendation I have seen is justifiable on its own merits, even to an AGW skeptic such as myself.

So, as far as I can tell, for you and Justin it's primarily the tone of their pronouncements -- the Boomerish "we know what's good for you" that bothers you, not the content.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

By the way, since we're correcting Bob's malapropisms, I should mention that I have yet to ever meet -- though I have at least heard of a person who actually "reject[s an] entire field... of science", at least insofar as climatology is concerned. We could even quibble, on the part of those posited-by-hearsay people, that Bob and most of us are guilty of the same sin in rejecting the 'science' of astrology -- which also, by the way, has lots and lots of very pretty charts and very squiggly lines. There could very plausibly be a person who rejects climatology on the grounds that it is a faith-based, evidence-light pseudoscience.

Actually, I do have a copy of the "Astrologer's Handbook" upstairs. Still, after going into the interactions between satellite dishes and flat earth theory, I'm not sure folks are eager for the connection between many worlds quantum physics, metabolic changes and astrology. I'll leave that for another time, especially as the evidence is absurdly thin.

When I was chasing God, I did a more thorough exploration of 'magic' -- of when mind seems to over ride matter -- than a lot of folks might think. I flirted with the Born Again, Wiccan, Taoist, New Age and parapsychology communities, and took the evidence each community took for granted seriously. I continued until I found a vaguely plausible answer. My answer (see Proving Murphy's Law) was just utterly incompatible with what the scientists want to believe about science, or what the religious want to believe about God. (Parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt's response? "Metabolism... it can't be just metabolism...") Still, after that experience, I don't doubt that when there is a values clash, my primary loyalty is to science rather than religion. I flow with the evidence, not with what my religious or political upbringing suggests would lead to a happily ever after comfortable set of values.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Having dispensed with that -- a position, I hasten to add, not my own. I should mention that run-of-the-mill skeptics are not skeptical as to the scientific nature of studies of climate. What they are skeptical of is the inadequately-constructed (as badly as Bob's strawmen, one could say...) theories that are being flogged by some in the field. This is in no way denying the field at all.

Hmm... A while back, one of your themes was cosmic rays effect climate. I came back with "true," acknowledging cosmic rays have a role, but I provided a lengthy post on stellar arms, and why the slow time scale shows they have nothing to do with global warming. You disavowed stellar arms. I asked what you did believe in, links please. You provided a bunch of links to stellar arms articles, along with one non-reviewed blog claiming climate scientists have not established CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Some time later, you acknowledge CO2 is a greenhouse gas without disavowing the link you provided. Meanwhile, you provide allegations that global warming causing menaces are lurking hidden in the 'stellar topography,' without providing much in the way of what these menaces might be and how they can effect cosmic ray counts without being detected.

My assertion would be that none of your early theories on the cause of global warming are shared by anyone in the serious scientific climatology community. I am pleased you are backing off the pseudo science somewhat, and am waiting on a real theory. The only one that seems vaguely on the table is solar fluctuations. Mike and I have gone over that one often enough. There was a significant increase in solar activity in the early 20th century, and an increase in greenhouse gasses in the later 20th century. To explain the data, both have to play a role.

As to your assertion above, I would quibble with the word 'some.' "What they are skeptical of is the inadequately-constructed... theories that are being flogged by some in the field." It seems that every time there is a major conference of climatologists, they attempt to fly a red flag warning to the politicians. The serious scientific climatology community is saying one thing, producing solid results, while a small minority is suggesting that with more research (more money), they might be able to say something else.

I just have the feeling that you don't comprehend the links that you provided. Otherwise, you wouldn't have trashed 'stellar arms' or called the 'CO2 is not a greenhouse gas' assertion a strawman. That leaves us disagreeing on the merits of the models. I don't know that either of us is qualified to do a code review, but the models do match reality and no one has been able to make a "CO2 isn't a big deal" model work. Meehl tried. I would be very surprised if he was the only one. CO2 is at the core of the issue.

That, and your comments on the nature of the models have been persistently wrong... While there are computer power limits on what one can do, some models do run fundamentals, some do run high resolution, some do run simulations of other epochs. You can check the weaknesses of one model with a different model. They just don't have the computer horsepower to do satisfy every conceivable criticism with one model. Such a computer run would simply take too much CPU time. It is better to solve specific parts of the problem with the right tool for each job.

Which is the same situation as with the lab. Most any single element of a climate theory can be simulated in the lab. One can measure CO2 absorption rates at a given temperature and pressure. One can observe what happens when a cosmic ray passes through air at a given temperature, pressure and humidity level. Still, you seem to be demanding that the whole atmosphere be simulated in the lab. You shrug of dividing the problem into small pieces, suggesting nothing is proven until someone builds a planet in a test tube. (Step 1, suspend a small black hole in the laboratory to create a small but intense gravity field to contain the test atmosphere. Step 2, surround said black hole with something that simulates the surface of the planet, and prevents the test atmosphere from getting swallowed by the black hole. Step three, spin the simulated planet...)

We don't have a big enough test tube, or a tame enough black hole. The results of the specific 'one piece of the puzzle at a time' experiments drive the fundamentals based computer models. That gets us back to your rejection of computers as a climatology tool.

What proofs would you consider adequate?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, it pretty much is, in the same way that denying quantum mechanics would be rejecting the whole field of physics, or denying evolution would be rejecting biology.

Strictly speaking, since the fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics have actually been experimentally tested -- and passed, it's really not like that at all. Dittos with the evolutionary process as regards biology. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a proposed mechanic that is not fundamental to the science of climatology. So it's more like how there are starting to be people asking about 'string theory', "Pretty pictures, but since it's not testable, why are we wasting our time on it?"
Science is no less susceptible to sweeping fads than is any other human endeavor. Again, it's not the science that is being denied, but the particular (non-fundamental, btw) theory.

Or more precisely, you're setting yourself up as an amateur climatologist and rejecting the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the professionals in the field.

et tu, Brian? I've come -- to my regret -- to expect the Argument from Authority and the Argument from Numbers from Bob. But I really thought you were above that. As you well know, the number of people duped by a theory says nothing whatsoever about its accuracy. The only thing that matters to science is the ability of a theory to explain -- that is, to rigorously predict (in the already abovediscussed sense of the word 'predict') the behavior of a system. No one has to 'believe in' science at all for it to be true; that is, for it to be in accord with the behavior of physical systems. I wonder, does the Argument from Consensus actually work on anyone but the scientifically illiterate and the already-convinced?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmm... A while back, one of your themes was cosmic rays effect climate.

Again, in the reality-based world, I have yet to have a 'theme' -- rather in an apparently wrong-headed attempt to provide you with some examples of alternative possible mechanisms for affecting the Earth's climate whose utter lack of inclusion would invalidate the AGW-models-as-corresponding-to-reality, I tossed up a few examples, one of which was the least-studied, yet simultaneously best-accepted forcing-factor for global climate -- the cosmic ray environment.
Your response that the sun's cosmic rays were fairly well tracked, while correct itself, failed to account for the fact that there are more sources in the galactic cosmic-ray environment (whose being included as a part of 'galactic topography so offended Mike for some reason...), some of which -- and these would be the spiral arms that you decided to elevate to a strawman and flog for all it was worth -- are nearly as well-followed as the sun, others of which are not followed at all.
The flavor of the cosmic rays is not important; demonstrated experimentally (as opposed to the majority of the theories you flog). Their impact is known to be significant. And yet you dismiss their non-inclusion from AGW models as irrelevant and 'anti-science' (or at least 'anti-consensus'). Here's a layman-level discussion of why that might not be the case.
Anyway, they weren't critical to my point; just the one, among many non-considered factors, most scientifically-documented. For some reason I thought that might make on impact on one so enamored of Argument from Authority.

My assertion would be that none of your early theories on the cause of global warming are shared by anyone in the serious scientific climatology community.

And a fine assertion it is. I'm very happy for you and your community. Eppur si muove.

It seems that every time there is a major conference of climatologists, they attempt to fly a red flag warning to the politicians.

People waving flags at politicians aren't scientists. They are lobbyists. They may have day jobs in the science field, but that's apparently not what they're doing at these conferences.

The serious scientific climatology community is saying one thing, producing solid results, while a small minority is suggesting that with more research (more money), they might be able to produce something else.

Very interesting. It is, after all, the pro-AGW-crowd that is government-funded and that is continuously bucking for more money. Just interesting how even that works against your argument...

Otherwise, you wouldn't have trashed 'stellar arms' or called the 'CO2 is not a greenhouse gas' assertion a strawman. That leaves us disagreeing on the merits of the models. I don't know that either of us is qualified to do a code review, but the models do match reality and no one has been able to make a "CO2 isn't a big deal" model work.

The models do not match reality. They can't. We don't have the independent datasets for a period of reality that wasn't used in calibrating the models in the frist place. Thus far, all the models do is spit back out the data that was fed into them in the construction process.

Meehl tried. I would be very surprised if he was the only one. CO2 is at the core of the issue.

Of course, if someone tried to feed different data into models that were calibrated in a certain way, the chances are very good that they will not work. This is an excellent test of programming; but as for climatology, it really has nothing to say on the subject. Of course CO2 is at the core of the models. That's how they were built.

While there are computer power limits on what one can do, some models do run fundamentals, some do run high resolution, some do run simulations of other epochs.

Point me to one that runs simulations of other epochs. And the datasets they use and how they got them. My argument is not that the current AGW models cannot be used to model other times, but that we have no way to compare the results from the model with the reality of that time with any kind of accuracy. If you've got something else, now would be a really good time to put it up.

Which is the same situation as with the lab. Most any single element of a climate theory can be simulated in the lab.

The problem with that is that, in nonlinear systems there is a feature called 'feedback'. That is, the behavior of the system is not the sum of the behaviors of the system components. Thus far the linearity of climate has only been proposed; and the single paper I've seen about it was really just a test of the linearity of the models used.
I'm sorry to bruise your faith, but it is possible that there are questions which are too big to be modeled in a laboratory -- and that the only way to study them is the long way of data accumulation over time. But don't worry too much, the theory of evolution was one of those, and that one has so far turned out alright. It's just that many, many years of study and collection and cataloging were necessary to get to the point where the knowledge base was sufficient to support a theory of that scope. Climatology just isn't there yet.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, since the fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics have actually been experimentally tested -- and passed, it's really not like that at all. Dittos with the evolutionary process as regards biology. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a proposed mechanic that is not fundamental to the science of climatology. So it's more like how there are starting to be people asking about 'string theory', "Pretty pictures, but since it's not testable, why are we wasting our time on it?"

Science is no less susceptible to sweeping fads than is any other human endeavor. Again, it's not the science that is being denied, but the particular (non-fundamental, btw) theory.

If CO2 greenhouse gas isn't a fundamental mechanism for climatology, what is? There are other greenhouse gasses including methane and SO2. There is solar variation. There is cosmic ray variation. There are particles causing dimming ('soot' or 'sulfates') released by both volcanoes and factories. There are Milankovitch's variations in Earth's orbit. I wouldn't doubt a few other basic mechanisms could be thrown up. If the above aren't fundamentals, what is meant by 'fundamental'?

I'd acknowledge that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't fundamental in that man is contributing in multiple ways. I'd call greenhouse gasses and particles causing dimming to be fundamentals. However, both volcanoes and factories emit both CO2 and dimming particles. Therefore, mankind is a contributor effecting multiple fundamental climate elements. We know what happens when a volcano goes off big time, dumping particles into the air in massive quantities. See The Year Without a Summer. We have eons of records of CO2 and temperature moving up and down together, influenced as well by Milankovitch orbital variations and stellar arm cosmic ray effects. Greenhouse gasses and soot particles are fundamentals, but not the only fundamentals.

I just don't see how anyone can doubt that man is adding greenhouse gasses or particles to the atmosphere, and thus is effecting fundamentals. One can measure what is coming out of smokestacks, and measure what is in the atmosphere on isolated islands in the middle of the Pacific. There is no doubt about what happens when things are added to the atmosphere, or that things are being added to the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

et tu, Brian? I've come -- to my regret -- to expect the Argument from Authority and the Argument from Numbers from Bob. But I really thought you were above that. As you well know, the number of people duped by a theory says nothing whatsoever about its accuracy. The only thing that matters to science is the ability of a theory to explain -- that is, to rigorously predict (in the already above discussed sense of the word 'predict') the behavior of a system. No one has to 'believe in' science at all for it to be true; that is, for it to be in accord with the behavior of physical systems. I wonder, does the Argument from Consensus actually work on anyone but the scientifically illiterate and the already-convinced?

ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Stephen Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation" and "John Searle has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Searle is a linguist, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

Thus, when professional climatology conferences tend to conclude with red flag warnings to the politicians, referencing expert opinion is valid. Granted, saying that the number of people arguing one side or the other on this web site would not be. None of us are experts in the field. One has to judge who is backing up their positions with hard data and references from the experts.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If CO2 greenhouse gas isn't a fundamental mechanism for climatology, what is?

I didn't say that the chemical makeup of the atmosphere wasn't fundamental to climate -- rather that the limited proposition that the warming seen over the last couple decades is primarily related to humankind's excess CO2 contributions is not. Climatology as a science will survive just fine once enough more is learned to discard this fairly limited hypothesis. That's what's meant by 'fundamental'. Not the drivers of the system, but the science as a discipline. For example, Pythagoras' theorem is fundamental to geometry; F=ma is fundamental to physics. Without them, you don't have the discipline at all. Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't rise to even close to that level.

We were, after all, not talking at that point about mechanisms, but about the assertion made that skeptics of AGW are denying the entire field of climatology. Which just flatly is not the case.

None of us are experts in the field. One has to judge who is backing up their positions with hard data and references from the experts.

Indeed, in science the references from the experts alone are pretty meaningless. It all comes back to hard data. Which is pretty thin on the ground for the AGW thesis -- in fact, given the basic unit of climatology being the planet-decade, pretty thin for the discipline as a whole. Again, not something to worry about overmuch; it is a pretty young science still. We'll get there.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I didn't say that the chemical makeup of the atmosphere wasn't fundamental to climate -- rather that the limited proposition that the warming seen over the last couple decades is primarily related to humankind's excess CO2 contributions is not. Climatology as a science will survive just fine once enough more is learned to discard this fairly limited hypothesis. That's what's meant by 'fundamental'. Not the drivers of the system, but the science as a discipline. For example, Pythagoras' theorem is fundamental to geometry; F=ma is fundamental to physics. Without them, you don't have the discipline at all. Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't rise to even close to that level.

We were, after all, not talking at that point about mechanisms, but about the assertion made that skeptics of AGW are denying the entire field of climatology. Which just flatly is not the case.

Indeed, in science the references from the experts alone are pretty meaningless. It all comes back to hard data. Which is pretty thin on the ground for the AGW thesis -- in fact, given the basic unit of climatology being the planet-decade, pretty thin for the discipline as a whole. Again, not something to worry about overmuch; it is a pretty young science still. We'll get there.

Hmm... Concentrating for a moment on a single fundamental...

Greenhouse gasses are a fundamental mechanism. CO2 is the single most basic and best understood of these gasses, a fundamental mechanism in its own right. Eons worth of hard data link CO2 with warming. Man is known to be releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than the oceans can absorb. This is hard data. This accumulation of gasses in the atmosphere can be measured, is hard data. The heating of the planet in recent decades is also hard data. The heating we have seen in recent decades is entirely compatible with the greenhouse fundamental mechanism which shows a long term historical linkage between CO2 and heating. Thus, the hard data matches the fundamental mechanism.

Would you care to deny any of the above hard data or fundamental mechanisms without going back to that blog's 'CO2 is not established by science as a greenhouse gas'?

From there, the skeptic might go for complexity. One might argue that another fundamental mechanism totally neutralizes the CO2 greenhouse gas fundamental mechanism, though one would have to explain how that is true now but is not true in the historical record. One might then argue that yet a third fundamental mechanism is causing the warming of recent decades, not CO2. Of course, I'm not sure how this is different from saying that the two hypothetical unproven fundamental mechanisms cancel each other other out, and CO2 caused the warming after all. I'd use Occam's razor and suggest that the two hypothetical fundamentals are unnecessary to the argument, especially if there is no hard data to indicate two such hypothetical fundamentals are in play.

Thus far, you have been reluctant to provide theories about what is causing the warming, if not CO2, let alone provide hard data showing that whatever fundamental mechanism you'd care to name is in play.

Hard data. Fundamental mechanisms. Go for it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I do actually think that humans might be partly responsible, but other factors might also be responsible, and there is no way of proving who did what to whom.

In one sense that is true of everything. We can never prove anything definitively. But that doesn't stop us from using our theoretical understanding to achieve practical results. So if humans stop emitting CO2 and CO2 levels stop rising and temperature stops rising that would constitute proof in most people's books.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

et tu, Brian? I've come -- to my regret -- to expect the Argument from Authority and the Argument from Numbers from Bob. But I really thought you were above that. As you well know, the number of people duped by a theory says nothing whatsoever about its accuracy. The only thing that matters to science is the ability of a theory to explain -- that is, to rigorously predict (in the already abovediscussed sense of the word 'predict') the behavior of a system. No one has to 'believe in' science at all for it to be true; that is, for it to be in accord with the behavior of physical systems. I wonder, does the Argument from Consensus actually work on anyone but the scientifically illiterate and the already-convinced?

"Argument From Authority" is claiming the experts are always right, it has nothing to do with deferring to experts because one isn't knowledgeable about the nitty-gritty numbers. You are abusing the "argument by authority" assertion the same way most cranks and kooks do.

I like the way Tim Flannery put it in The Weather Makers. The skeptics' arguments are too full of coincidences. CO2 is PROVEN to be a greenhouse gas. It is PROVEN that the CO2 level has increased from 280ppm to 390ppm since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and the isotopic analysis has PROVEN that increase in CO2 level was the result of human activity. It is PROVEN that the normal CO2 level during glacial periods is around 180ppm and CO2 levels during interglacial periods are normally around 280ppm. To argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming is madness. The question now is NOT "are we warming the planet" the question now is "HOW MUCH will we warm the planet.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, since the fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics have actually been experimentally tested -- and passed, it's really not like that at all. Dittos with the evolutionary process as regards biology.

Excuse me, Justin, but what you are saying here is that in your judgment both quantum mechanics and evolution have been experimentally tested and confirmed. And about evolution, you are mistaken. Many parts of that theory are confirmed only by observation uncontrolled by experiment. Your layperson's opinion is all that stands between evolution and global warming, and your misstatement about the theory of evolution points up the perils of trusting to that opinion. In fact, AGW and evolution are very similar in how well they are supported (although I grant that there is more solid evidence behind quantum mechanics than behind either AGW or evolution).

et tu, Brian? I've come -- to my regret -- to expect the Argument from Authority and the Argument from Numbers from Bob. But I really thought you were above that. As you well know, the number of people duped by a theory says nothing whatsoever about its accuracy.

Oh, please. Climatologists aren't "duped" by this theory. They're as rigorous and as inclined to verbally beat on each other as any other scientists, and AGW has been tested and confirmed in the usual way, and argued for and against in peer-reviewed publications the same way that any theory in physics is. If you go back to around 1990 and check out the journals in the field, you'll find a great deal of criticism and skepticism in print. But that has declined over the years as the theory has survived the scrutiny and as more data have been accumulated. At this point, the only serious debate on AGW (aside from quibbling over details) occurs outside the field of climatology, and that is a sign that an idea has passed its tests and become an accepted part of a field.

I don't have the time to become a climatologist myself, and so I must, with reasonable reservations, rely on the experts in the field. If there is some reason, based in something I do know about, to doubt the findings of scientists, then I'll doubt them, but in this case there is none. Certainly you are (and anyone else is) entitled to raise objections to even the most well-established theory, but frankly up to now none of your objections have made any sense at all.

The argument from authority is fallacious only when made an absolute.

Science is no less susceptible to sweeping fads than is any other human endeavor.

That's not true. The scientific method, and especially the process of peer review, is designed to reduce the danger of "sweeping fads," among other irrationalities, and it works. So while individual scientists are just as irrational as anyone else, science as a whole is not. Another example, by the way, of emergent properties in a community that make it not reducible to complete description in terms of its individuals.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I've seen first-hand the results of science as religion, and it's not pretty. What happens is that people start believing in crappy science, which is influenced by politics and/or money and/or "consensus," and as a result real scientific progress suffers. . . . For example, there is hardly anyone researching alternative medicine right now, because there is no money to be made, and the majority of Americans still like their drugs manufactured in a lab instead of grown on a farm. We may be missing out on "real" scientific progress by getting distracted by agenda-driven data, and the problem is even worse if we are unable to distinguish between the two.

I think you may be seeing the problems in medical research as more prevalent in academic science than they really are, probably because you're too close to them and they loom large. As I said before, medicine is really more like engineering than science, although it's called a science, and as you note it's a field of engineering with a lot of money at stake. There is no other field of science, though, that's as beholden to corporate interests as medicine, and in the case of AGW many of the moneyed interests fall on the OTHER side of the equation.

And it's very possible for people to have honest disagreements about what is contained in those gaps without throwing out the entire concept of evolution

Correct. But it is not possible to actually throw out the entire concept of evolution without doing so. The reason that scientists are raising red flags to politicians about AGW isn't because there is a consensus on every detail of the theory, but because there is a consensus on the general outlines, sufficient to cause alarm.

And biologists DO raise red flags to politicians about evolution, whenever creationists try to prevent it from being taught properly.

Voila I believe in AGW.

I'll ride my bike to work. There, that fixed the problem.

And, we love big pharma sponsored research. don't be dissin it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's not true. The scientific method, and especially the process of peer review, is designed to reduce the danger of "sweeping fads," among other irrationalities, and it works. So while individual scientists are just as irrational as anyone else, science as a whole is not. Another example, by the way, of emergent properties in a community that make it not reducible to complete description in terms of its individuals.

Somebody please remind the fools who constantly trot out Kuhn that.

And more importantly, big pharma needs market research to make sure that all those millions are spent usefully.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And biologists DO raise red flags to politicians about evolution, whenever creationists try to prevent it from being taught properly.

I'll add that The Rani brought up another example of biologists raising warnings about evolution. We are prescribing antibiotics too often, and too freely. The nasty little bugs keep evolving. I'm not sure the flags are quite the same flavor of red, but the scientific community raising a warning is in principle similar.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Excuse me, Justin, but what you are saying here is that in your judgment both quantum mechanics and evolution have been experimentally tested and confirmed. And about evolution, you are mistaken. Many parts of that theory are confirmed only by observation uncontrolled by experiment. Your layperson's opinion is all that stands between evolution and global warming, and your misstatement about the theory of evolution points up the perils of trusting to that opinion. In fact, AGW and evolution are very similar in how well they are supported (although I grant that there is more solid evidence behind quantum mechanics than behind either AGW or evolution).

I'm not really objecting to the above. This is just a nitpick about quantum mechanics. A sidetrack, way off topic.

In science, one would like to have hard data, some sort of predictive mechanism such as equations that explains the data, and a theory about what the equations mean. Newton's invisible fields of force, the concept of 'greenhouse gas' or the notion of 'the survival of the fittest' might stand as examples of theories, attempts to use language to describe what is going on.

Quantum mechanics is way weak on explanations of what is going on. Oh, there is lots of hard data. There are a ton of equations which can predict statistically what one will observe. Quantum mechanics has two thirds of the game down really solid.

But if you try to ask how single particle interference works, you discover few real answers. The equations predict it. The data shows it occurs. If one tries to grapple an intuitive feeling for what is going on, one gets rapidly confused. The equations might show a high percentage chance that an electron can be observed in a give position in an orbital, and and be observed at another position with equal probability, but the chances of observing the particle moving from point A to point B would be nil. This does not make sense to those of us used to dealing in the larger scale Newtonian universe, and to a great degree most physicists aren't trying to figure it out. The nature of reality at quantum scales and speeds remains incomprehensible.

Some are attempting to make sense of it. Strings theory assumes the existence of tiny two dimensional objects as a fundamental building block in 11 dimensions. (Is it 11 now? I may have lost count.) I am personally fond of retro causality and the notion that multiple alternate realities interfere with one another. An electron dancing in its orbitals might be interfering with itself across time as well as were it also might be at the current moment, and where it might be in the future. It is more likely to be observed where it used to be one period prior, or might be one period later. Language even fails as a particle might have used to have been in multiple places. English might not have enough tenses to describe quantum reality adequately.

Anyway, if retro causality and interference between multiple possibilities aren't the two correct principles that would allow comprehension and description of the data, then I intuit the correct principles will be equally startling and strange to dwellers in a basically Newtonian scale of existence.

But I prefer the term 'quantum mechanics' to 'quantum theory.' We're great on the mechanics. The theory??? Not so much.

Also, if we are going to talk fallacy, I thought I might mention one more.

ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.

If one keeps saying "I don't want to acknowledge this hard data' or 'I don't want to acknowledge that said fundamental mechanism is at work' a bunch of times, does this invalidate the data or revoke the fundamental mechanism?

Originally Posted by The Rani

So ok, I'm seriously waiting for someone to present the scientific evidence that shows how much humans have warmed the planet, how much more we will, the specific effects that it will have, and exactly how and to what degree what we do from here on out will change that.

You might try reading here, but you will need to develop an open mind, and ignore a great deal of ad-hominum attacks.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The content is just as bad. I've seen first-hand the results of science as religion, and it's not pretty. What happens is that people start believing in crappy science, which is influenced by politics and/or money and/or "consensus," and as a result real scientific progress suffers. [...] We may be missing out on "real" scientific progress by getting distracted by agenda-driven data, and the problem is even worse if we are unable to distinguish between the two.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the main problem is not any particular action that the global warming alarmists are advocating, but the whole push for faith-based science. Fair enough.

The problem is that we already have a political agenda driven by faith-based science, and despite what you may hear, the Bushies have waaay more influence than the Gorites. What to do about that, I don't know. But you're right that the solution isn't "be like the GOP, only worse".

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe the next great civilizations will be built by whales.

What a ridiculous idea. Everybody knows it will be the dolphins.

Originally Posted by Finch

What a ridiculous idea. Everybody knows it will be the dolphins.

I'm holding out for the parrots.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Damn, that's a good idea for a whole new science fiction series, like Planet of the Apes. I need to apply for a copyright, quickly!

David Brin beat you to it:

http://www.amazon.com/Startide-Risin...8760053&sr=8-2

But if he hadn't, I probably would.